J

- S72026

- 17

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.
ANTWINE HOLDER,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2429 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 24, 2016 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0011307

- 2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29 , 2017 Antwine Holder (“Holder”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
i mposed following his conviction of attempted murder, aggravated assault, kidnapping, persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a lic ense, and carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 270 2(a)(1), 2901(a)(2), 6105, 6106, 6108. We vacate the judgment of sentence , and remand for resentencing

. Following a jury trial, Holder was conv icted of the above

- mentioned crimes. The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered a pre

- sentence investigation report. On February 24, 2016, the trial court sentenced Holder to an aggregate term of 44 to 102 years in prison. Relevant to this appeal , the trial court imposed a term of 20 to 40 years in prison for Holder’s kidnapping conviction

. On March 7, 2016, Holder filed a Motion forJ

- S72026

- 17

- 2

-

R econsideration, 1 which the trial court denied. Holder filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court

- ordered Pa.R.A.P . 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. On appeal , Holder asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence of 20 to 40 years for his kidnapping conviction. 2 Brief for Appellant
at 22

- 23. The Commonwealth and the trial c ourt agree that the sentence imposed for Holder’s kidnapping conviction is illegal. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 14

- 15; see also Trial Court Opinion, 1/27/17, at 6 (wherein the trial court stated that “[t]he sentence on [Holder’s] kidnapping conviction ... w as imposed in error.”). In its Opinion, t he trial court noted that Holder faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(1), but recognized that Holder ’ s sentence “exceed[s] the statutory maximum sentence for a first

- degree felony.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/27/17, at 6 ; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103 (1 ) (providing that a person may be sentenced, “[i]n the case of a felony of the first degree, for a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than 20 years.” )

. Accordingly,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Holder, pro se , had previously filed a Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2016. This Court subsequently quashed the appeal as interlocutory, as the trial court had not entered an order regarding the Motion for Reconsideration

.
2 A lthough Holder failed to raise this claim in his Concise Stateme nt , “challenges to the legality of the sentence are never waived.” Commonwealth v. Berry , 877 A.2d 479, 482 (Pa. Super. 2005).J

- S72026

- 17

- 3

-

we must vacate Holder’s judgment of sentence and remand the case for resentencing. “As the resentencing has the potential to disrupt the trial court’s entire sentencing scheme, we vacate all of [Holder’s] sentences and remand for resenten cing at all counts.” Commonwealth v. McCamey , 154 A.3d 352, 359 (Pa. Super. 2017). 3 Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12 /29/17

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We note that Holder also raised a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Brief for Appellant at 15

- 22. However, in light of our disposition, we need not address Holder’s second claim. See Commonwealth v. Barnes , 167 A.3d 110, 125 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2017) ( en banc ). Moreover, we note that Holder’s second claim is waived, as his Motion for Reconsider ation di d not include his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing “consecutive sentences for these offenses committed concurrently.” Brief for Appellant at 16; see also Motion for Reconsideration, 3/7/16; Commonwealth v. Moury , 992 A.2d 16 2, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “[o]bjections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed.”).